N
NonCatholic
Guest
NonCatholic;4736179Is the Catholic priest considered of the order of Melchizedek? If so said:
- Status
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Can you please give me the post# of the questions again?..thanks.
H
Hisalone
Guest
LOL
When questions are posted on an internet message board anyone can answer them.
I will continue to address an posts of my chosing.
E
elijio
Guest
Nevermind. It was NDFAN. I was helping you out!
Here’s a link for the Catholic priest you are asking about for whatever reason.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0357.html
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
My answer gave the information about the origins of the efficacy of the sacrament, which is the key point.
N
ncgolf
Guest
You make a good point on effaciousness (if that’s a word). When Jesus speaks it can be done …by His word only. Now Catholics do not use John 6 alone in discerning what Christ meant on the Eucharist … it is biblically typed all through the Old and New Testament.
The typology used in Scripture gives clearer meaning to what the Scripture writers intended on whether it is flesh or not … the whole Bible is used for the Catholic belief not just John 6.
E
elijio
Guest
I posted this question on another thread about John Ch. 6 and no one answered it for me so I’m going to post it here as well:
Ok, I have a couple of questions for this thread regarding this verse:
John 6:53 (New King James Version)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
When and how do protestants do this ‘‘symbolically’’ or other???
And if they don’t do it at all, Why not?
Peace.
The other thread is by Protestant101 and the title is ‘‘Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?’’
Ok, I have a couple of questions for this thread regarding this verse:
John 6:53 (New King James Version)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
When and how do protestants do this ‘‘symbolically’’ or other???
And if they don’t do it at all, Why not?
Peace.
The other thread is by Protestant101 and the title is ‘‘Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?’’
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Yes, it’s true that the scriptures have many references, not just one. I was addressing the general line of attack on sacraments.
Typically when anti-Catholics attack the various sacraments they attack the form, the ritual, they attack the worthiness of the individual performing the sacrament and their authority, and, of course, in the case of the Eucharist, they attack the Real Presence. The source of the underlying power of these, and other, sacraments unravels all their arguments and shows them to be vain.
H
Hisalone
Guest
I feed on Christ spiritually. It is not symbolic it is spiritual.
Christ is truly present spiritually where our spirits are able to feed on Him. Christ is not food for our flesh but food for our spirit.
E
elijio
Guest
It goes on to say:
John 6:53-60 (King James Version)
53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat (’‘food’’ in the RSV) indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Question: Where does it say what you say? ‘‘It is not symbolic it is spiritual.’’ Chapter and verse, please.
Peace.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
How come no “protestant” have answered these questions yet. You protestants need to stop worshiping your pastors opinion and learn some history.Thank you! BTW, here’s some interesting facts for you.
I will also pray that you put your pride aside and ask God to open your mind and realize that what you’ve been taught and what you teach now is what was warned about in Sacred Scripture.
- God’s Church was referred to as ‘‘catholic’’ for the first time in the 1st century in a letter by St. Ireneus who used the word meaning ‘‘universal’’. The disciples of the apostles (the early Church fathers) quickly adopted the word to distinguish it from other pagan churches.
- The Catholic Church survived until 382 A.D. without a canon of scripture published as the Bible that we have today.
- It was a bunch of Catholics who were guided by the Holy Spirit and published the canon of scripture at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
- Sacred Scripture and Tradition was taught as a whole with the same interpretation for centuries until Martin Luther added the word ‘‘alone’’ to the King James Version 1600.
- Martin Luther never disputed the interpretation of John Ch. 6.
- The King James Version 1600 contains a calendar of all the Saint Feast Days and all 72 books.
- Martin Luther and not Jesus or his apostles, is the one who taught ‘‘sola fide’’ or ‘‘faith alone’’ which you seem to be the fruit of.
- No where in the Bible does it say what you or Martin Luther teach. Jesus didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ the apostles didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ and none of the early Church fathers taught ‘‘faith alone’’. Not until Luther in 1600 A.D. who was an excommunicated Catholic monk.
- The authority to ‘‘bind and loose’’, including the interpretation of Tradition or Sacred Scripture, was passed down from Jesus himself to the Apostles who passed down the same authority to today’s Magisterium.
- There was a living Catholic Church between the time the disciples of Jesus’ apostles taught and the Bible was published with 72 books (not 66) and John Ch. 6 was taken as literal then and it is taken as literal now.
Now then…would you like to answer my questions from the earlier post or should I just keep repeating them to you?
Peace.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Maybe you can answer this which was asked first.
Originally Posted by NDfan
Bill no disrespect but what rules of scriptural interpretation are you following?? Once is figurative, but more than that is literal??
In the OT the Jews were commanded by GOD to NOT eat the blood of a living being. Did that need to be repeated 3 times so the Jews would take it literally because it wasn’t?? Yet you want everyone to believe that Jesus, when speaking to law abiding Jews, spoke literally that they should break the law of HIS Father.
Please tell me why when after Jesus supposedly consecrated the wine into HIS blood that HE still refers to it as drinking the fruit of the wine? Fruit of the vine by the way doesn’t mean grape juice. It was a way of referring to wine. Show me the instructions Jesus gave to HIS disciples to repeat the process of turning the bread and wine into HIS literal body and blood. Do this in remembrance of ME refers to eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Christ. So where does Jesus say when you repeat the words I just stated the consecration takes place.
Now also in Corinthians when Paul repeats the words of the so-called consecration he still refers to the bread as bread saying as often as you eat this bread. Why doesn’t Paul say when you eat the flesh of Christ.
Why did Jesus take the 3rd cup of redemption, which is red wine mixed with warm water in the Seder meal to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs from the Exodus, and say this cup is the new covenant in MY blood?? HE didn’t say this cup of my blood. The Jews always treated the wine as a symbolic representation of the blood of the lambs. Christ now says it’s HIS blood as the perfect sacrificial lamb. Yet somehow you want to change a sacred Jewish practice into your own by taking a piece of figurative scripture and putting it through a meat grinder so it meets a ridiculous belief.
Finally in the 1st century it was a common Jewish tradition that when a man and woman considered marriage, they drank a cup of red wine. The groom in proposing to the woman would take the cup of red wine, hand it to the woman and say “This cup is a covenant with my blood”. The woman had a choice of either drinking it or not. If she did it represented her acceptance to be his bride. I don’t think she thought she was drinking his blood.
Now let’s see what does Christ call HIS church? Does the word bride come to mind? Each time we drink from the cup we proclaim Christ’s death and profess our acceptance to be part of Christ’s bride, HIS church.
H
Hisalone
Guest
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
I don`t know neither what rules of scriptural interpretation he is following, but Jesus made His words loud and clear. My body is REAL food, my blood is REAL dring. Jesus Himself was talking in a literal sense.
Did you not read the part of the scriputer when Jesus said the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit?. Did you also not see my other posts where I said you can not compare reciving the flesh of Jesus Christ to eating an ordinary human being. It is because the flesh of a human body profits nothing, but the Spirit IN the Flesh is what gives you eternal life.
Take a look at the history of the Catholic church, the Concescration is no new dogma in the Church, it has always been praticticed after Jesus asceneded to Heaven. The Bible has been compiled years and years after Jesus walked on the Earth He created.
Because Jesus Christ had already said that. “My Flesh is real FOOD, and my blood is real DRINK”. “I am the BREAD of Heaven”-not “I am the FLESH of Heaven”.
Protestants use the the same tactics as Muslims do when they quote from the Bible. A Muslim uses the part of the bible after the resurection when Jesus said “Your God, and My God” trying to disprove the divinity of Jesus. So do the protestant use verses out of context to attempt to disprove the Catholic Church.
We didn`t change a Jewish pratice, we fullfilled it.
In the 1st century the Eucharist has been celebrated. This is before the protestants had the chance to make their man-made doctrines.
yeah…
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
So you basically saying the Flesh of Jesus profits nothing?
It is the Spirit IN the Flesh that profits eternal Life.This is why you can`t compare reciving the Comunion to eating a ordinary human body.
H
Hisalone
Guest
We recieve communion when our spirit communes with the Spirit of Christ. This communion is life to our spirit. Eating of flesh profits the spirit nothing.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
you are half right. Our Soul does unite with the Spirit of Christ. But it is THROUGH the Flesh. Why do you think Jesus said my Body is real food?
B
broski234
Guest
Well now, here we have a little contradiction of what you said in post #108. You said the spiritual is not symbolic. But here you are using v. 63 to show Jesus was speaking symbolically. In v. 51, Jesus says “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross! Was that symbolic? If you think Jesus is speaking symbolically here when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic…It wasn’t really Jesus hanging up there…It was symbolic flesh and symbolic blood. Jesus is clearly talking about the flesh taht He gave for the life of the world. He did that on the cross. So did Jesus give His real flesh and blood for the life of the world, or was it only His symbolic flesh and symbolic blood? The spiritual is just as real as the physical. Right? Of course it is.
H
Hisalone
Guest
No my friend Christ gave up His flesh that we might have life in the spirit, His flesh crucified is what gives us life in that way His flesh is food indeed.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
CORRECT!!!
but if you are a non-Catholic then unfortunutaly you can`t recive His flesh, which is food indeed.- Status